Dr. Okrand had already previously clarified the meaning of {ngIq}, but apparently it isn't clear enough. When we first went through the paq'batlh, we thought the passages with {ngIq} were pretty clear, based on the explanation already given. None of those passages were changed in the 2nd edition. Someone asked us to go through the passages with {ngIq} again, so we did, and again, they all seemed pretty clear based on the previously revealed information about {ngIq}. Since it's not really clear to us what the issue with {ngIq} is, let me try to explain its meaning, and if anything is still unclear by the end of this, reply to this email and I'll forward your questions to Dr. Okrand. To summarise what's already known: * {ngIq} precedes noun which is not explicitly plural (meaning it doesn't have a plural suffix, and isn't an inherently plural noun) and {ngIq X} is grammatically singular, but references a group of Xs. It always implies that there are (or could be) other Xs. * {Hoch S} (with singular S) and {ngIq S} can both be translated as "each S". {Hoch S} means "each S, considered individually". {Hoch P} where P is a plural means "all Ps, considered collectively" or "every P". {ngIq S} can't be translated as "every S". * The difference between {Hoch S} and {ngIq S} is that {ngIq} has a sequential meaning. {Hoch X} focuses on each X as a member of a group of Xs; {ngIq X} focuses on one X as an individual X. * {ngIq} can be translated as "single" or "individual", but only in the sense or with the implication that one is talking about a "single" or "individual" X out of a bunch of Xs. (I think this is where the confusion originates, because "single" or "individual" in English can mean "singular" or "unique", but that's not covered by {ngIq}.) * The example Dr. Okrand gave was {ngIq mIch wIHotlh} "we scan the sectors one by one", or "we scan each individual sector one after the other". The implication is that there are multiple sectors. {Hoch mIch wIHotlh} means "we scan each sector", with no sense that there's any relation or sequence to them. * If the sequence doesn't matter, {Hoch X} and {ngIq X} are interchangeable, but there are cases where {ngIq X} and {Hoch X} have different meanings or consequences. Let's look at the examples from Klingon Monopoly first: {ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} "outposts cost 150 each" {ngIq raQvaD cha'maH vagh QaS yInob} "For each outpost pay 25 forces" {ngIq gholvo' wa'maH QaS yItlhap} "Collect 10 forces from every player" {ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob} "Pay each player 50 forces" These are representative only. These sentences are repeated with different values in the game itself, depending on the card, but that's irrelevant here. {ngIq X} means "one X out of a bunch of Xs", so {ngIq raQ} means "each X". In most cases, {Hoch X} means the same thing. However, consider {ngIq gholvaD vaghmaH QaS yInob}. Suppose that you have 100 forces, and are playing against players A, B, and C, whom the game's rules define that you have to pay in that order. In that case, {ngIq ghol} "each player, one after another" is explicit that you have to pay players A and B first, and then you declare bankruptcy or call an auction or however you deal with owing 50 troops to player C. {Hoch ghol} "each player" would not be so clear in that case. I think the Klingon Monopoly examples are very clear. (Does anyone think otherwise?) Now, let's look at the usages in the paq'batlh. There are three. I think the first two are clear, and it's the third one that causes problems for some people. {yerchajvo' Haw' / qamchIynganpu' / ngIq nuv luHoH / molor vaghvatlh} "The people of Qam-Chee, / They fled their territory, And were killed one by one. / By the five hundred of Molor" It's clear that {ngIq nuv} refers to the people of Qam-Chee. This is what Dr. Okrand wrote about this passage: <Regarding p. 135 — This says that Molor’s warriors killed each individual Qam-chee person separately. They didn’t, for example, use an explosive to kill a bunch of them together or fire a machine gun into a crowd. (Granted, the technology didn’t exist, but no matter.) Again, “one by one” is a reasonable English way to express this.> {nIteb chegh molor ngIq ghoqwI' / joqwI''e' cha'bogh qeylIS / luDel 'e' ra' molor} "One by one Molor’s scouts return, / He asks them which banner / Kahless marches under." Again, it's clear there are multiple spies. (They're the elided subject of {luDel}.) This is what Dr. Okrand wrote about this passage: <Regarding p. 139 — {ngIq} shows that we’re talking about one individual {ghoqwI’} at a time, not the group as a whole, so it means something like “each (single individual) of Molor’s (group of) scouts returned” as opposed to “all of the scouts returned” or “the whole group of scouts returned” or even simply "the scouts returned." The presence of {nIteb} clarifies/amplifies that each of these individuals returned alone, unaccompanied. So “one by one” is a good idiomatic English way to express all of that.> (Does anyone think these two lines are unclear?) Now, let's look at the last example. I'm not going to quote the entire thing, because the context for the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} line is set up by everything in the chapter titled {Hay' chaH} up to that point. Here's a snippet of the English: "And they battle, for three hours, / Kahless’s bat'leth sparks, / And Molor’s mighty sword roars. [...] In the first hour, / Kahless cut off Molor’s beard, [...] In the second hour, / Kahless broke Molor’s sword in half, [...] It was not long, by the third hour, / Before Kahless struck his bat'leth / Right into Molor’s hearts, ripping them out. In one single move, he removed the hearts, In one single move, he restored his honor, In one single move, the battle was done." In Klingon, the last segment is: {tugh qaStaHvIS rep wejDIch / molor cha' tIqDu' DuQchu' qeylIS / 'ej lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej quvqa' ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej rIn may'} The lines preceding {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} describe a sequence or series of moves, e.g., clashing swords, Kahless cutting off Molor's beard, more clashing swords, Kahless breaking Molor's sword in half, even more clashing swords (with Molor's broken sword at this point), and finally, Kahless striking Molor and ripping out his hearts. It's after this last move is described that the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} line appears. The line is translated as "In a single move". The Klingon is, in my opinion, actually much clearer than the English here. {ngIq tonSaw'} means "one move out of a bunch of moves". That is, it means "a single move" with the implication that it's one move isolated out of a bunch. This is what Kahless does: in a single move (out of a bunch of moves), he removed Molor's hearts. In other words, using {ngIq} relates the move that Kahless used (which ripped out Molor's hearts) to all of the moves in the series, several of which are described in that chapter. (Presumably there were many moves in the hours-long battle which were not explicitly described.) It's "a single move" because it focuses on that one move, which removed Molor's hearts and ended the battle, as opposed to other actual or potential moves (or sequence of moves) which might've done this, but didn't. The reason that {ngIq tonSaw'} does not mean "each move" here, and the three repeated {ngIq tonSaw'} do not refer to three different moves, is context. In isolation, {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} *could* mean "he used the moves one by one". I guess if Klingon Monopoly had a card that said {ngIq tonSaw' yIlo'} it would mean "use each move". But the complete line, {ngIq tonSaw' lo' 'ej tIqDu' lel}, works against this interpretation, because "he used the moves one by one and removed the hearts" doesn't make sense in the context of the story, which just told the reader that Kahless' last move in his battle against Molor was to remove his hearts. This line occurs in a chapter in which the moves Kahless used against Molor are described individually, ending with this one final move. In context, it can't mean anything other than "in a single move (out of the moves used by Kahless)". That is, it means something like "he used a single move (out of the bunch of moves he used) and ripped out the hearts", focusing on this one move out of the sequence. The way {ngIq X} is used is that it picks out one X out of a bunch of Xs. It actually has the same meaning in all of the sentences in which it appears. I think the {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} line stands out because, in all the other other sentences, {ngIq X} could be translated as "each X", whereas in this line it can't. But this isn't because {ngIq X} means two different things in English, it's because context dictates how it should be translated in Klingon. There's actually one place in the paq'batlh where "one by one" wasn't translated using {ngIq}. When I pointed this out, Dr. Okrand wrote: <“One by one” — or any other phrase — doesn’t have to be translated the same way each time unless the repetition is intentional.> About why the other two usages of {ngIq} in the paq'batlh are translated using "one by one", Dr. Okrand wrote: <The notion of sequence, of “one after the other,” comes from the way the world (universe? galaxy?) works. Unless things are happening simultaneously, they’re happening one after the other.> As for the repeated {ngIq tonSaw' lo'} referring to three separate moves, it seems impossible to interpret those lines that way. Or, at least, it seems not to be any easier to misinterpret that way than the thrice-repeated "in a single move" in English. As for the suggested revision {wa' tonSaw' lo'}, Dr. Okrand wrote: <As for {wa’} repeated three times meaning three separate moves — I suppose that’s a possible interpretation, though if that’s what was intended, it would probably be {wa’ tonSaw’… latlh tonSaw’} or maybe {tonSaw’ wa’DIch… tonSaw’ cha’DIch…} or maybe there’d be a {ghIq} or two in there someplace.> Dr. Okrand's conclusion here: <I think {ngIq} is better than {wa’}. Kahless and Molor have been fighting for three hours, slamming their swords into each other (even though Molor’s sword was broken), with no one victorious. Finally, it was one move all by itself — not a series of moves, not a repeated move — that achieved victory.> Maybe a reason for the confusion is that, generally speaking, Klingon vocabulary maps mostly neatly into ideas which are easy to describe or delineate in English. With {ngIq}, we're getting an idea that's actually pretty well-defined, but doesn't map neatly into English. It seems to have some senses of the word "single" in English but not others, and seems to differentiate between senses of "each" that English doesn't (namely, "each" carrying a sense of sequentiality or temporality). "I'm carrying just a single bat'leth." - This is {wa'}, not {ngIq}. "I have ten widgets. A single one costs one darsek." - This is {ngIq}, and would be translated using "each" but (usually) not "one by one". "I have ten books. I read each of them." - This is {ngIq}, and might be translated either with "each" or "one by one" (assuming that one can't read multiple books simultaneously). "There are three houses. The first was made of straw. It was destroyed by the wolf. The second was made of wood. It was destroyed by the wolf. The third was made of brick. The wolf could not destroy this house. With a single house, the wolf was defeated." - This is {ngIq}, and might be translated as "single" or "individual" but not as "each" or with "one by one". Evidently, the English "single" has some overlap with both {wa'} and {ngIq}, and the Klingon {ngIq} has some overlap with both "each" and "single". But {ngIq} is a well-defined concept in Klingon. It just doesn't correspond exactly to anything in English. To summarise, {ngIq} picks out one thing out of a sequence of identical things ("identical" only in the sense that they can be described by the same noun). If the sentence applies to all of them, then "each X" or "X, one by one" are possible ways to translate {ngIq X}, depending on whether the fact that the Xs are in a sequence matters. If the sentence applies to just one X that is especially picked out, then {ngIq X} can be translated as "a single X" or "an individual X". This does not mean "a unique X", but rather "a single X out of a bunch of Xs". Is anything about the usage of {ngIq} still unclear? (If there's really a serious problem with {ngIq}, there's a small window in which those lines can be revised to be more clear in the 2ed of the paq'batlh, so let me know ASAP.) -- De'vID
De'vID:
{ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} "outposts cost 150 each" {ngIq X} means "one X out of a bunch of Xs", so {ngIq raQ} means "each X". In most cases, {Hoch X} means the same thing
So, in this case, if instead {ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} we had {Hoch raQ - 150 QaS}, then the meaning would be exactly the same, right? De'vID:
There's actually one place in the paq'batlh where "one by one" wasn't translated using {ngIq}
What's that place? Anyway, to summarize all this, (and see if I understand this correctly) I'll write two examples: 1. {vabDot tlhIngan Hol ghItlhmey vIqonbogh laDchugh pagh, ngIq chuSwI''a' Sa'Hut vInobbe'}. The only thing that the the above can mean is "I don't give a single rat's ass, even if no one reads the Klingon that I write". Obviously, it cannot mean that "I don't give the ass of one rat, then I don't give the ass of the next one, then of the next one, and so on.. ." Also, it would be weird to write the above with {Hoch} instead of {ngIq}, since that would mean "I don't give each rat's ass", and perhaps it would be equally weird to use {wa'} instead of {ngIq} (although less weird that {Hoch}), since that would mean "I don't give one rat's ass". Although, I feel the {wa'} variation to be closer the the {ngIq} original. Perhaps the {ngIq} variation has more of an "emphatic" flavor.. Whatever. 2. {vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD ngIq yInwIj vInob}. The only thing this sentence can mean is "if I was a cat, I'd give each of my lives for Greece", with the meaning being "I give my first life for Greece, then I give the second, then the third, etc.." Obviously it cannot mean "if I was a cat, I'd give a single life for Greece", because I'm no jay' traitor. I'd give *all* my lives for Greece in a heartbeat. And for the same reason, I would never use {wa'} instead of {ngIq}, because only a traitor cat would give only one of its' lives for its' country, Now, suppose I wrote: {vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD Hoch yInwIj vInob} This would obviously mean: "if I was a cat, I'd give each of my lives for Greece". But here, it isn't made clear that the way in which I'd give them, would be in succession, one after the other. I hope my understanding is correct, because now that I think of this matter, after almost seven years of Klingon, and after having written my brains out in this so-called language, I've never used {ngIq} not even once. I hope that after this thread this will change. -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 13:56, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
De'vID:
{ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} "outposts cost 150 each" {ngIq X} means "one X out of a bunch of Xs", so {ngIq raQ} means "each X". In most cases, {Hoch X} means the same thing
So, in this case, if instead {ngIq raQ - 150 QaS} we had {Hoch raQ - 150 QaS}, then the meaning would be exactly the same, right?
I don't remember the details of the game rules exactly, but I believe they would mean the same thing, because the outposts referred to are on the same game square (planet) and the only thing that matters for the cost is how many there are, not their order. I guess there's a possibility that with {Hoch}, someone who isn't up to date on the grammar might misinterpret that as "all outposts as a group cost 150" (which we know should be {Hoch raQmey}), but if they're not up on the latest Klingon grammar (or at least the latest as of the time Klingon Monopoly came out), they wouldn't understand a bunch of other things in that game anyway. And common sense should rule out that interpretation.
De'vID:
There's actually one place in the paq'batlh where "one by one" wasn't translated using {ngIq}
What's that place?
"Fek’lhr inspects them, One by one, With his deadly glance." {QIt wa’ qa’ nuD veqlargh QIt latlh qa’ nuD veqlargh Hegh lurur mInDu’Daj}
Anyway, to summarize all this, (and see if I understand this correctly) I'll write two examples:
1.
{vabDot tlhIngan Hol ghItlhmey vIqonbogh laDchugh pagh, ngIq chuSwI''a' Sa'Hut vInobbe'}.
The only thing that the the above can mean is "I don't give a single rat's ass, even if no one reads the Klingon that I write". Obviously, it cannot mean that "I don't give the ass of one rat, then I don't give the ass of the next one, then of the next one, and so on.. ."
I don't think idioms like "a single rat's ass" translates across languages. Reading only the Klingon, I'm unable to understand the meaning. {ngIq} always implies that there are (or could be) several of the thing under discussion. {ngIq chuSwI''a' Sa'Hut vInobbe'} implies that there are potentially multiple rat's asses you could've given. Are there? The translation of {ngIq} depends on whether the sentence is referring to a group of items treated identically, or a single item from that group singled out for attention. Without already knowing your intention (and the meaning of the English idiom), I can't rule out that this means "I do not give each rat's ass one by one".
Also, it would be weird to write the above with {Hoch} instead of {ngIq}, since that would mean "I don't give each rat's ass", and perhaps it would be equally weird to use {wa'} instead of {ngIq} (although less weird that {Hoch}), since that would mean "I don't give one rat's ass". Although, I feel the {wa'} variation to be closer the the {ngIq} original. Perhaps the {ngIq} variation has more of an "emphatic" flavor.. Whatever.
I actually think this sense of "single" is {wa'}. You're not singling one thing out of several for attention. You're saying that something is not even worth so much as one of something.
2.
{vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD ngIq yInwIj vInob}.
The only thing this sentence can mean is "if I was a cat, I'd give each of my lives for Greece", with the meaning being "I give my first life for Greece, then I give the second, then the third, etc.."
Obviously it cannot mean "if I was a cat, I'd give a single life for Greece", because I'm no jay' traitor. I'd give *all* my lives for Greece in a heartbeat.
And for the same reason, I would never use {wa'} instead of {ngIq}, because only a traitor cat would give only one of its' lives for its' country,
This sentence I understood. But it depends on the reader knowing that a cat has multiple (traditionally nine) lives.
Now, suppose I wrote:
{vIghro' jIH net jalchugh, 'elaDya'vaD Hoch yInwIj vInob}
This would obviously mean: "if I was a cat, I'd give each of my lives for Greece". But here, it isn't made clear that the way in which I'd give them, would be in succession, one after the other.
Right. It also means "each of my lives", but it lacks the sequentiality or temporarlity of {ngIq yInwIj}.
I hope my understanding is correct, because now that I think of this matter, after almost seven years of Klingon, and after having written my brains out in this so-called language, I've never used {ngIq} not even once. I hope that after this thread this will change.
I don't understand why you seem to feel the need to use every possible construction that the language has available. But if you find yourself in a situation that calls for {ngiq}, it's there. -- De'vID
Ok, thanks! The only "problem" with this matter, is that -if I understand correctly- we can't use {ngIq} on a noun with a number. For example we can't say: ngIq Soch yIn vIghro' each of the seven lives of a cat (In Greece cats are considered to have seven lives). -- Dana'an https://sacredtextsinklingon.wordpress.com/ Ζεὺς ἦν, Ζεὺς ἐστίν, Ζεὺς ἔσσεται· ὦ μεγάλε Ζεῦ
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 15:58, D qunen'oS <mihkoun@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok, thanks!
The only "problem" with this matter, is that -if I understand correctly- we can't use {ngIq} on a noun with a number. For example we can't say:
ngIq Soch yIn vIghro' each of the seven lives of a cat
(In Greece cats are considered to have seven lives).
Right. I think this would be disallowed by the rule that the noun following {ngIq} can't be explicitly plural, since {Soch} would make {yIn} plural. I actually did suggest to Dr. Okrand that one option to disambiguate the meaning of {ngIq} might be to use {wa'} with it (like the somewhat redundant "one single X" in English). He wrote: <If I’m right about the “one after another” interpretation of {ngIq}, I don’t think {wa’ ngIq} or {ngIq wa’} is needed (whether it’s grammatical or not).> (His reference to his interpretation is to this sentence, which I quoted earlier: <The notion of sequence, of “one after the other,” comes from the way the world (universe? galaxy?) works. Unless things are happening simultaneously, they’re happening one after the other.>) -- De'vID
{ngIq X} was previously described as inherently plural* (i.e., grammatically singular but plural in meaning). Obviously it doesn't have to be plural in meaning, since {ngIq tonSaw lo'} in PB refers to only one move, so people's notes may need revision. Also De'vID, you have caused me to rethink my previous interpretation that {ngIq} implied that all the people of Qam-Chee were killed. I think it's implied, but not by {ngIq}; I now take it that {ngIq} just means they were killed individually, however many were killed. Another thing you've made me reconsider: I have definitely used both {ngIq} and {Hoch} following a plural noun, and while intelligible, it may have been totally unidiomatic usage. Apparently there are no canon examples of this, but my intention was that {?nuHmey ngIq} and {?nuHmey Hoch} meant "each of the weapons" and "all of the weapons," specifically referring back to a set of weapons I had previously mentioned, as opposed to weapons in general, in the way {nIn Hoch} refers specifically in context to the fuel the ship started out with. Do you think this is complete nonsense or is it worth asking Dr. Okrand? ~mIp'av * I dislike the term "inherently plural" because of the potential for confusion. It once came up with no context to tell me whether it meant plural in meaning but grammatically singular or singular in meaning but grammatically plural (like "scissors").
Le lun. 13 juin 2022 à 18:11, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> a écrit :
{ngIq X} was previously described as inherently plural* (i.e., grammatically singular but plural in meaning). Obviously it doesn't have to be plural in meaning, since {ngIq tonSaw lo'} in PB refers to only one move, so people's notes may need revision.
In the same article that I think you're referring to (in the qepHom'a' 2017 booklet) where {ngIq X} was described as "inherently plural", it's also explained how {ngIq tonSaw'} could be translated as "a single move". I think the way it's written there is a bit confusing, and it just meant that {wI-} (and not {DI-}) is the correct prefix in {ngIq mIch wIHotlh} despite the fact that the meaning of the sentence is that multiple sectors are scanned. (It was specific to those examples where the sentence applied to multiple things, and "since it refers to more than one X" really means "when it refers to more than one X") There's no new information in what I wrote.
Another thing you've made me reconsider: I have definitely used both {ngIq}
and {Hoch} following a plural noun, and while intelligible, it may have been totally unidiomatic usage.
I don't think this works. Dr. Okrand considered {Qapla'meywIj Hoch}, which appeared in the first edition of the paq'batlh, to have been a mistake. {Hoch} following an uncountable noun means "all of X", as in {nIn Hoch}. See my post "{Hoch} before and after a noun" about this. -- De'vID
Is it possible to use Hoch after a countable singular noun? Like chab Hoch vISop I eat the whole cake (I've seen some use naQ, but I've understood that it is wrong, as the cake is "whole" before I eat it regardless of whether I eat all of it or just a part). Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 13th, 2022 at 20.26, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Le lun. 13 juin 2022 à 18:11, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> a écrit :
{ngIq X} was previously described as inherently plural* (i.e., grammatically singular but plural in meaning). Obviously it doesn't have to be plural in meaning, since {ngIq tonSaw lo'} in PB refers to only one move, so people's notes may need revision.
In the same article that I think you're referring to (in the qepHom'a' 2017 booklet) where {ngIq X} was described as "inherently plural", it's also explained how {ngIq tonSaw'} could be translated as "a single move". I think the way it's written there is a bit confusing, and it just meant that {wI-} (and not {DI-}) is the correct prefix in {ngIq mIch wIHotlh} despite the fact that the meaning of the sentence is that multiple sectors are scanned. (It was specific to those examples where the sentence applied to multiple things, and "since it refers to more than one X" really means "when it refers to more than one X") There's no new information in what I wrote.
Another thing you've made me reconsider: I have definitely used both {ngIq} and {Hoch} following a plural noun, and while intelligible, it may have been totally unidiomatic usage.
I don't think this works. Dr. Okrand considered {Qapla'meywIj Hoch}, which appeared in the first edition of the paq'batlh, to have been a mistake. {Hoch} following an uncountable noun means "all of X", as in {nIn Hoch}. See my post "{Hoch} before and after a noun" about this.
-- De'vID
On Monday, June 13, 2022, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
Le lun. 13 juin 2022 à 18:11, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> a écrit :
Another thing you've made me reconsider: I have definitely used both
{ngIq} and {Hoch} following a plural noun, and while intelligible, it may have been totally unidiomatic usage.
I don't think this works. Dr. Okrand considered {Qapla'meywIj Hoch}, which appeared in the first edition of the paq'batlh, to have been a mistake. {Hoch} following an uncountable noun means "all of X", as in {nIn Hoch}. See my post "{Hoch} before and after a noun" about this.
Thanks for the quick and definitive response. That there's an example he considers a mistake seals the deal. It's certainly no problem to make it clear which weapons I'm talking about without doing this, e.g. {ngIq nuHmeyvam}. ~mIp'av
On Monday, June 13, 2022, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to use *Hoch* after a countable singular noun? Like *chab Hoch vISop* *I eat the whole cake* (I've seen some use *naQ*, but I've understood that it is wrong, as the cake is "whole" before I eat it regardless of whether I eat all of it or just a part).
Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 13th, 2022 at 20.26, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would jump in here just to point out that cake in English is also a mass noun, so it should be fine unless {chab} is not used as a mass noun in Klingon. ~mIp'av
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 22:56, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2022, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to use *Hoch* after a countable singular noun? Like *chab Hoch vISop* *I eat the whole cake* (I've seen some use *naQ*, but I've understood that it is wrong, as the cake is "whole" before I eat it regardless of whether I eat all of it or just a part).
Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 13th, 2022 at 20.26, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would jump in here just to point out that cake in English is also a mass noun, so it should be fine unless {chab} is not used as a mass noun in Klingon.
I just realised that may be support for {Hoch} after a countable singular noun, but with some caveats, in {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom}. I gave Dr. Okrand a list of all prior usages of {Hoch} (including {HochHom}) in our discussion about {Hoch}. He confirmed that {Hoch} (or {HochHom}) after an uncountable noun like {nIn} or {QeH} would mean "all" (or "most") of the thing. He accepted that {HochHom} works like {Hoch}, following a noun. He didn't raise any objection to the implied {vatlh DIS poH Hoch}, but then there was a lot of stuff he didn't comment on so he might've just missed or ignored it as it wasn't relevant to the paq'batlh. But it seems that {vatlh DIS poH Hoch} would be okay for "all of the century". Among the questions he ignored was what {tlhIngan Hoch} or {tlhInganpu' Hoch} would mean, if anything. (But he ignored a lot of questions that had no direct bearing on the passages we were editing, even if they came up in the context of those passages.) We know {from {qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey...}) that {poH} is countable. ({puq poHmey} also appears in one passage in the 2ed.) But there's a complication, since {puq poHmey} is a kind of metonymy. That is, it refers to a group of people, even though the words actually describe a period of time (a "child period" or "offspring period"). So {puq poH Hoch[Hom]}, if it means anything, would not be "all [most] of the people of the generation" but "all [most] of the child period". In any case, it seems that {poH Hoch} would be grammatical and means "all of the time period", even though {poH} is countable. However, {poH} (and in particular, {vatlh DIS poH}) is a sort of thing that seems like it's naturally divisible. If you divide a {poH}, you get a {poH} (even if it's a smaller one). That isn't true of {tlhIngan}, so {tlhIngan Hoch} might not be okay even if {poH Hoch} is. I think a {chab} is arguably more like {poH} than {tlhIngan}, as it's a thing that you would normally divide to share for eating (if you divide a {chab} you still get a thing that would be {chab}, unlike {tlhIngan}), so I think {poH Hoch} suggests that {chab Hoch} is okay. But that's just my opinion. -- De'vID
One other question regarding HochHom. For now it has only been used after a noun, but can it precede a countable noun? Can I say HochHom tlhInganpu' most Klingons? Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Tuesday, June 14th, 2022 at 11.24, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 22:56, Ed Bailey <bellerophon.modeler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, June 13, 2022, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to use Hoch after a countable singular noun? Like chab Hoch vISop I eat the whole cake (I've seen some use naQ, but I've understood that it is wrong, as the cake is "whole" before I eat it regardless of whether I eat all of it or just a part).
Iikka "fergusq" Hauhio ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, June 13th, 2022 at 20.26, De'vID <de.vid.jonpin@gmail.com> wrote:
I would jump in here just to point out that cake in English is also a mass noun, so it should be fine unless {chab} is not used as a mass noun in Klingon.
I just realised that may be support for {Hoch} after a countable singular noun, but with some caveats, in {tera' vatlh DIS poH cha'maH wej HochHom}. I gave Dr. Okrand a list of all prior usages of {Hoch} (including {HochHom}) in our discussion about {Hoch}. He confirmed that {Hoch} (or {HochHom}) after an uncountable noun like {nIn} or {QeH} would mean "all" (or "most") of the thing. He accepted that {HochHom} works like {Hoch}, following a noun. He didn't raise any objection to the implied {vatlh DIS poH Hoch}, but then there was a lot of stuff he didn't comment on so he might've just missed or ignored it as it wasn't relevant to the paq'batlh. But it seems that {vatlh DIS poH Hoch} would be okay for "all of the century". Among the questions he ignored was what {tlhIngan Hoch} or {tlhInganpu' Hoch} would mean, if anything. (But he ignored a lot of questions that had no direct bearing on the passages we were editing, even if they came up in the context of those passages.)
We know {from {qaStaHvIS wej puq poHmey...}) that {poH} is countable. ({puq poHmey} also appears in one passage in the 2ed.) But there's a complication, since {puq poHmey} is a kind of metonymy. That is, it refers to a group of people, even though the words actually describe a period of time (a "child period" or "offspring period"). So {puq poH Hoch[Hom]}, if it means anything, would not be "all [most] of the people of the generation" but "all [most] of the child period".
In any case, it seems that {poH Hoch} would be grammatical and means "all of the time period", even though {poH} is countable. However, {poH} (and in particular, {vatlh DIS poH}) is a sort of thing that seems like it's naturally divisible. If you divide a {poH}, you get a {poH} (even if it's a smaller one). That isn't true of {tlhIngan}, so {tlhIngan Hoch} might not be okay even if {poH Hoch} is. I think a {chab} is arguably more like {poH} than {tlhIngan}, as it's a thing that you would normally divide to share for eating (if you divide a {chab} you still get a thing that would be {chab}, unlike {tlhIngan}), so I think {poH Hoch} suggests that {chab Hoch} is okay. But that's just my opinion.
--
De'vID
On Tue, 14 Jun 2022 at 11:43, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
One other question regarding *HochHom*. For now it has only been used after a noun, but can it precede a countable noun? Can I say *HochHom tlhInganpu' **most Klingons*?
There were a bunch of unanswered questions about the grammar of {Hoch}, {HochHom}, {'op}, {pagh}, {bID}, and {loch} among my questions sent to Dr. Okrand that were raised by the paq'batlh, which he hasn't answered. Maybe he'll write something about it after the paq'batlh is out, or maybe he won't. My own belief is that {HochHom} should be usable wherever {Hoch} is (and vice versa). So I'd understand {HochHom tlhInganpu'} as like {Hoch tlhInganpu'}, but lesser: "most Klingons, collectively". But that usage is unattested. -- De'vID
On Mon, 13 Jun 2022 at 21:21, Iikka Hauhio <fergusq@protonmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible to use *Hoch* after a countable singular noun? Like *chab Hoch vISop* *I eat the whole cake* (I've seen some use *naQ*, but I've understood that it is wrong, as the cake is "whole" before I eat it regardless of whether I eat all of it or just a part).
I don't know the answer to that question. -- De'vID
participants (4)
-
D qunen'oS -
De'vID -
Ed Bailey -
Iikka Hauhio